Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 4th, 2006

[Jim Alexander]

I would be hard-pressed, Mr. Chair, to correct honourable members in a committee like this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, go ahead, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Chair, I'd simply say that the anonymity of the applicant is a fundamental cornerstone of freedom of information laws. That has to be our starting point, the premise, the foundation of everything that we stand for and believe in, if we're fighting for the right to know and for freedom of information. What you've told us today changes everything.

I used to think I was somewhat of an authority on this issue, as I've been engaged in it for at least the last four or five years. But I didn't know that. To me, life as we know it will never be the same in the access to information community, as you put it.

In fact, I think as of this moment there's going to be a chill on freedom of information requests based on what we've learned at this meeting. This is devastating. We, as a committee, should be really concerned. It's shocking to me, because the retribution can go both ways too. It's not just the applicant who has to fear retribution; it's the access to information coordinator who may say no to a minister because he thinks it's morally or ethically repugnant to disclose the name of the applicant.I think we've opened up a real can of worms here.

I want to thank you for your testimony today and for your interpretation of it. In your presentation on page 6, you say, “Heads of government institutions are responsible for ensuring...” access to government information, etc. It never occurred to me for a minute that that goes all the way up to a minister's right to know who the applicant is.

I don't know if I even have a question, Mr. Chair, other than to say that I thought we were in for a dry, boring presentation, a statement of the status quo and the law as it stands, so we could all start with the same base-level information. In actual fact, our committee has a lot of work to do if that's the status quo. Freedom of information laws in this country are in tatters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, it goes beyond that, because I began my questioning by quoting the privacy person, and the privacy person said clearly that there's nothing in the Access to Information Act that specifically indicates that the name of a requester cannot be disclosed. That's what shocked me, that Parliament passed an act 20 or 25 years ago—whenever it was—and either didn't deal with that issue, didn't think of it, or implicitly rejected protecting the identity in that act. That may be something we as a committee will want to make a recommendation on later. Maybe they thought it would be sheltered under the Privacy Act—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's the answer we got yesterday, Mr. Chairman. I asked the same question of the Information Commissioner's deputy when he was here, saying, do you mean there's nothing in the ATI act that specifically precludes or protects the privacy of the applicant? They said no, it's the Privacy Act that protects the privacy of the applicant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Stanton has a point of order.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Just for the record, the Privacy Act is clear in the sense that the revelation of a requester can only be disclosed, in the context of the act—and I can't remember the section, I'm sorry—expressly for the same purpose for which it was collected or a purpose that's consistent with that purpose. We heard very clearly in our last meeting that in fact there is a scope within which that name can be used, within the context, within the department. That was very clear to me. However, it's only when the revelation of that requester goes beyond that scope that in fact the Privacy Act has been breached.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Just a minute; I'm dealing with a point of order, which isn't necessarily a point of order.

The privacy person specifically said, “That said, however, the matter could be a violation of the Privacy Act.” They didn't say it “would be” a violation of the Privacy Act. That's why there's an investigation to examine all of the circumstances.

I don't think it's a point of order, but I think your point is right.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm finished, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Madame Lavallée, and that's it.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Dhaliwal. I'm going to give you two minutes, so that we'll have Madame Lavallée for two minutes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll make sure I'm within two minutes.

Mr. Chair, it's very disturbing to hear today that these five groups Mr. Lemieux mentioned.... If we look at the spirit of the act, if the identity of a requester of information is disclosed to the minister and his staff, then these five groups will lose confidence and trust in the system, and nobody will be coming forward to enable access to the information. In fact, I echo Mr. Martin's comments here as well, that we have to do something about it so that we can regain the confidence and trust of those people who want to access the information, under the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's precisely one of the jobs of this committee, to make recommendations.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I have two very brief questions that you can answer with a yes or a no.

Are there subcategories in your inventory or just categories? For example, under the media category, there is no subcategory.

[Donald Lemieux]

No.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That answers my first question. Second, could we consider providing the ATIP requester with the list of people who asked to know his identity? For example, when the information is provided, there would be a form with a list of people who wanted to know the requester's identity. Of those people, there would be the Minister's staff, the Minister, and so on.

[Donald Lemieux]

In answer to your second question, the Access to Information Act deals with existing documents. If a document existed -- in whatever institution you care to choose -- and you filed an access to information request with that department or institution, a list of the type you have just described would be subject to the Access to Information Act. In other words, that document would be recovered by the Access to Information Office and reviewed to see whether any exceptions apply under the Act. Where appropriate, that information would be disclosed to you and there would be portions severed from the document.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Perhaps my question wasn't clear. What I was asking was whether it would be possible to provide the requester with a list of the names and titles of any individuals who wanted to know his identity.

[Donald Lemieux]

Mr. Chairman, it's not that I'm trying to be obstinate here, but the list you have referred to has to exist. The document must exist. To my knowledge, no such document actually exists. Of course, I am not in a position to go and check that in every single institution.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I believe we're talking at cross purposes here.

[Donald Lemieux]

I'm sorry.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I may not have made myself clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's because we're getting to the end of the meeting and we're tired.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yet it seems to me it's clear. It was clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much, Mr. Alexander and Mr. Lemieux. It has been a very interesting meeting, truly, and we appreciate your effort to answer our questions directly. Hopefully we'll work together to make sure that access to information request privacy is protected.

Thank you very much. We're adjourned.